I travel to Milwaukee next month to see Richard Dawkins and hear him speak about his new book. I even paid extra for the book signing and photo op afterwards. I started reading him several years ago and his work changed my life and my ability to better critically think about issues. I will be forever grateful for his voice of knowledge and reason
I feel the same when, as here, he's focused on science, evolution and atheism. In the last few years there's been a sense he's got a bee in his bonnet about "woke" and I really wish he'd stayed away from it.
I hope for peace and I root for you all to find it. I know we are in a complicated world. I'm glad we all get to come together through great minds/conversations
Dear Michael Shermer, I watch most of your interviews, they are very interesting. I have a request. Richard Dawkins is a hero of mine and I notice his new book prominently displayed behind him. My curiosity is with the other books on the shelves behind him. What are the titles? I would be interested to read the books that Dawkins has found worthy of keeping on his bookshelves.
1:14:20 "We have no right to expect, necessarily, that our brains are equipped to understand everything." Gleaming through the thick erudition, this is the humility that all scholars should remember to cultivate, and it's a call to embrace patience and compassion in dealing with others who think differently. Thanks for sharing the discussion.
"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." Also Dawkins! Maybe he learned some humility from religion?
The man who, more than anyone else, changed my mind and therefore my life. What a mind. What a writer. I cannot wait to read this new book. And I cannot wait to reread it-as I have done and will continue to do with all of his books. It's an honour to share this place and this moment in a vast eternity with Professor Dawkins.
47:00 - Re a person of faith discovering that the religious 'facts' they've been brought up on aren't based on reality... "What do you do then?" asks Michael on their behalf. As (hopefully) everyone watching this video will know: what you do is you ask more questions. If you find answers to those questions, you question the answers! Eventually, you'll uncover the truth. Maybe. You might not be around to hear it, but your great, great, great grandson may be. Or not. Unlike religion, science rarely provides satisfyingly complete answers to order, but they're always worth waiting for.
Very refreshing. Richard is interviewed by so many idiots. Now we have two very intelligent men chatting. Could not be better. Can we have more of this.
The issue I had with SJ Gould in his book Wonderful Life is that he jumped to conclusions the basis of morphologic evidence in the fossil record alone. He ignored that gobs and gobs of biological traits that contribute to the evolution of species or their extinction leave no trace in the fossil record: colour, to camouflage or stand out; chemical weapons such as deterring scents, irritants, poisons, pheromones and so on; one can go on.
Wonderful Life wasn't about speciation, or subtle differences between species, or even different traits like color which can occur within species (e.g. sexual dimorphism). Its about the monumental moment in geological time where radically different body plans--at the major scale of animal phyla--were formed. Many phyla so different they seem other-worldly, many which went extinct (with nature never making more), thereby making modern animals more similar to each other now than the radical diversity observed in the Cambrian.
I learned recently that there is evidence to suggest that the most recent common ancestor of the dugong and the elephant may have been aquatic, which, if true, would mean that elephants are animals whose ancestors left the water, went back, and then left again.
1:13:09- perhaps the only way we can truly understand the nature of Consciousness isn’t by searching for the right answer but by asking the right question. As Douglas Adam’s brilliantly suggested in his “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” when searching for the meaning to Life, the Universe & Everything.
Biological evolution remains the best model to explain the vast amount of knowledge and information accumulated through academic research, particularly over the last two hundred years. "Creationists" and others criticize the theory of evolution, but they are incapable of proposing an alternative theory that explains the available data better or at least as good as the theory of evolution.
Dawkins said, in the blind watchmaker, that "Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose..." I can't speak for creationists, but it may be that biology is simply what it looks like. That would solve a lot of the problems that have arisen with the theory in recent years. And creationists deserve some credit for being amongst the first to point them out.
This is the kind of conversation that makes the "dinner party question" pretty much redundant. No need to ask who you would invite to your perfect dinner party when there are exponents of the ideal guest available on demand - a mere click away - and you don't have to do any cooking!
Come together again soon please! These conversations are wonderful Absolutely 💯 from a 16 year of Catholic school kid when they taught creationism! ❤😂🎉 so wonderful to finally hear 👂 truth!
Respected Sirs,I have read few books by Richard Dawkins including Selfish Gene,The extended phenotype,Greatest Show on Earth,The God delusion and convinced about the gene’s eye view of evolution.Ever since I am a lot happier person to learn the greatest TRUTH ,EVOLUTION.Currently I am reading The genetic book of the dead.I am enjoying the video a lot giving more clarity.I request you to keep each video confined to the subject.Any reference in between about creationist etc.destroys the joy of listening the video on the main subject.Thank you very much.
wonderful, but, even a human designer of a new something does not, actually, start from scratch, but starts from where his/her history based culture has taught her/him.
Could anyone send a link for me to learn more about the whale/dolphin journey from sea to land and back again? I can try google scholar but I know it’s limited.
Around 55:52 Richard said something that makes me wonder: must there have been a creature that had two offspring, one of which had descendents that were Chimpanzees and one that had descendents that were humans?
He did say that but he's not quite correct. If you are looking at a single nucleotide (SNP) in the DNA you could "point" to a single common ancestor for two descendant species, say chimp and human, but another SNP in the DNA would have a different common ancestor, probably of the same population. What he said was a slight simplification. He should have said small breeding population rather than single individual as being the common ancestors to both descendant species.
"two offspring, one of which had descendents that were Chimpanzees and one that had descendents that were humans" That is what I am using to explain evolution to creationists
1:12:45 - imagine being cryogenically frozen so you could do that ? Whether our species, (or any other), would still be around in 500 years is another matter.
I think here is an ever more impressive example than the turtle: the Siberian Chosenia willow (Salix arbutifolia), which has made a journey from wind pollination to insect pollination to wind pollination to insect pollination to wind pollination.
Two highly intelligent men, linguistically jumping through hoops to pat each other on the back with articulating the no more than rules of what might have happened or what could have happened. All the while forgetting that some of the newest science is showing that ToE is all but over with.
Was always thinking, if you allign your legs and feet so they fill out all “empty spaces” side by side, you get a kind of fish looking one limb. But maybe Im overthinking 😅
I highly recommend you look at the available research papers that clearly indicate that epigenetics hasn't much material testable verifiable material evidence. As a evolutionary mechanism....weak in its effects and short lived in any population.
@@Raydensheraj "Hasn't much evidence" > "weak in its effects". I see. I interpret . . . but I'm an old man with many passing interests. You're correct, I'm sure. I _should_ look.
It is always a great enjoyment listening to Dawkins or reading his books.We have come so far in doing impossible surgeries and engineering building airplanes and rockets,the credit goes to cultural evolution.Human brains are unique that they are prone to be receptive to memes and allowing them to inhabit our brains.Memes are the thinking tools that enhance the powers of our brains exponentially.Without memes human brains or consciousness could not achieve what humans have achieved by cultural evolution.Virender Bhalla
It's funny how even the language that Dawson uses to try to argue against design is itself full of the pretension. He explains evolution as a force with intentions and economics, rather than the random genetic mutations that it is imagined as.
@spaceghost8995 our language provides ample vocabulary to express things accurately. There is no excuse for a scientist to use poetry when simple words are just as easy to voice....unless the excuse is a symptom of underlying beliefs.
Scientism is utterly insufficient to satisfactorily explain the mysteries of the universe. The explanatory potential of science has been vastly overexaggerated in recent decades. There's good reason to be skeptical about the overconfidence emanating from the so-called New Atheism movement, including the fact that people like Dawkins rely on metaphysical, empirically unverifiable assumptions to even engage in science in the first place.
36:25 let that be a lesson to the females, I think you mean. They're the ones doing the choosing. They're the ones providing the selection pressure. The males are just trying out different things...
Strangely, Dawkins' comment that rocks can't possibly be conscious, helped me to understand Hoffman's _Inter-relating Conscious Agents_ hypothesis a little better. If consciousness is the substrate of the universe, everything that manifests out of the substrate must be conscious. We don't need to specify the quality or nature of any of all such consciousnesses in comparison to human experience of consciousness.
What would the intellectual class do if the palemcest also gave evidence to possible future developments.obviously outside future environmental influences would determine outcomes
Fascinating stuff. I'm not sure I quite understood what he was saying about group selection, though - surely the group puts selective pressure on individuals to conform? (e.g. if a mutation causes an individual sardine to start acting differently to the shoal, it will get separated and eaten)
So the intelligent designer loves spontaneous natural abortions and miscarriages caused by a way too narrowly designed birthcanal? Crohn's disease? Parasitic wasps laying their eggs alien style into their victims? Klinefelter's syndrome? Cancer in small children suffering? Evolution and the reality of outrageously un-intelligent design completely refutates intelligent design..
It is all in the genes; no consciousness; no mind; no intellect; just biology. This may be true of RD but he shouldn’t extrapolate to be true, or to apply, to anyone else.
_"It's very clear that we are now in the _*_END OF TIMES_*_ "_ Sumerian cuneiform etching found on a clay tablet, radio-carbon dated to circa 3,500 years ago . . . - j q t -
it’s shocking to me that he still doesn’t understand what multilevel selection in. group selection and gene selection are not mutually exclusive. his views are extremely dated and i don’t recommend anybody learn about genes or evolution from him.
@@new_criticiser you will not really find a practicing evolutionary scientist (whether they’re a biologist or anthropologist) take dawkins’s view in full. his best work was the extended phenotype, which is very similar to the ideas of george c williams and is essentially a description/interpretation of population genetics. he’s a great writer and popularizer, and his ideas were initially very influential, but a lot has changed. what a multilevel selectionist would say today is you can have gene selection and group selection. the former is stronger but the latter occurs when inter-group competition places stronger selective pressure on genes that influence cooperative action. cooperative groups outcompete selfish groups. a lot of the talk about the relationship of genes to phenotype has changed as well. the frustrating fact about dawkins is he has not changed his thinking since the 1970s despite massive changes to our understanding.
@@Nah_Bohdi agree. he was purely a conceptual thinker. the selfish gene caught on because it fit the desired ideological commitments of (capitalist) society.
1- Many people were buried alive, and they wake up. Still happens to our day. 2- Richard is more religious in his belief than any religious person on earth. 3- I'm not so sure that in 500 years, people living than would appreciate you Richard coming back. 4- Pythagoras theorem is only true in an imaginary Euclidean geometry (not true in the real curved geometry we live in).
1- No: Modern medicine and procedures make such scenarios exceedingly rare. 2- No: Richard's intellectual rigor and religious belief operate on different premises. 3- No: Speculating about future reactions lacks grounding in historical trends. 4- No: Pythagoras' theorem is valid within Euclidean geometry, even if not universal.
@@gk-qf9hv Counting to four, such a monumental achievement. If you’re impressed by the basics, it might be worth expanding your horizons beyond the rudimentary. Intellectual engagement and thoughtful discourse could offer you a more profound sense of amazement.
In the XII century significant events take place, as described in the Gospels: the coming of Jesus Christ, his life and crucifixion, although the existing text of the Gospels was edited and most likely dates to the XIV-XV cc. In the mid XII century, in the year 1152, Jesus Christ is born. In secular Byzantine history he is known as Emperor Andronicus and St. Andrew the Apostle the First-Called in Russian history he was portrayed as the Great Prince Andrey Bogolyubsky. To be more specific, Andrey Bogolyubsky is a chronicler counterpart of Andronicus-Christ during his stay in Vladimir-Suzdal Rus’ of the XII century, where he spent most of his life. In fact, the Star of Bethlehem blazed in the middle of the XII century. This gives us an absolute astronomical dating of Christ’s Life. [ЦРС], ch.1. ‘Star of Bethlehem’ - is an explosion of a supernova, which at present is incorrectly dated to the middle of the XI century. The present-day Crab Nebula in the Taurus Constellation is the remnant of this explosion. Enigmatic timber scarcity in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages as first recognized by dender-pioneer Ernest Hollstein (1918-1988) "No sites exist anywhere with uninterrupted timber specimen from about 1000 CE backwards to Imperial Antiquity(1st-3rd c.). which is why the dendro-chronologies for Ancient Rome and, thereby the entire first millennium are in disarray. Since the very existence of the chronology periods without wood samples was never doubted by the researchers, nobody started to question our textbook chronology. Instead, out of stratigraphic context, scholars searched for wood samples in wells or moors to fill the irritating gaps. In addition, identical reign sequences were used twice in a row to gamer more years. Therefor, "all dendrochronological datings done on West Roman time wood is wrong by some unknown number of years"(") th-cam.com/video/c876lPZ-UZU/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=PlanetAmnesia
Spare me the bullshit. And worse than annoying me by wasting my time, your creative retelling of history might mislead the less perceptive , and those who cannot analyse critically and so you start another line of non factual history. Most other people strive to find the truth while you strive to obfuscate and confuse. Congratulations on using the gift of your brain to reduce the welfare of humanity. There is an adjective that describes your type which I cannot use on TH-cam
@@Nah_Bohdi No I'm not an evolutionary biologist but unlike you I understand it. I am a historian and archaeologist of 25 years plus working out of a natural history museum though my fellow ape. And only you are pontificating! Standard religious fool pushing their own inadequacies back on others.
@@Nah_Bohdi 🤣 I'm what now 🤣 That's a fancy word 🤣 Maybe you should look it up and then read your op and last post again 🤣🤣 No I'm not an evolutionary biologist but I am a historian and archaeologist of 25 years plus working out of a natural history museum my fellow ape 🤣🤣🤣
I travel to Milwaukee next month to see Richard Dawkins and hear him speak about his new book. I even paid extra for the book signing and photo op afterwards. I started reading him several years ago and his work changed my life and my ability to better critically think about issues. I will be forever grateful for his voice of knowledge and reason
I feel the same when, as here, he's focused on science, evolution and atheism. In the last few years there's been a sense he's got a bee in his bonnet about "woke" and I really wish he'd stayed away from it.
Enjoy! The Pabst is a wonderful venue, including the balcony.
Man, I'm so jealous. I've read every one of his books. He's one of my favorites!
@@indricotherium4802 I get you, yet rough with the smooth is how I see it
So happy for you - what an excellent experience 😮
Fascinating! Dawkins knows his onions. Great to live in an age where these conversations are available for all.
You’re damn tootin’ Brian Green, Sean Carrol and so many others
this is such an intelligent and elucidating conversation between 2 different but brilliant men. i have to listen to it again. thank you.
"Evolution is imprisoned by history"
Banger line.
th-cam.com/video/d4ERGgVS3fs/w-d-xo.html
Youre not a Geneticist AND NEITHER IS HE.
HE IS A QUACK.
Evolution is held hostage by theological contrivances.
@@JohnDavis-e3ctheology is an evolutionary adaptation
Loved this conversation, Richard seemed so relaxed, probably because he wasn't being asked stupid questions 😊
He’s definitely more jovial than being interviewed by Rogan.
What an extraordinarily calm and thoughtful conversation. A gem.
I can't wait for this book. It's one of only two things I've ever pre-ordered in my life.
I could listen to the giraffe story over and over and never not be astonished!!
Dawkins didn’t quite address largest dinosaur skeleton vs. blood pressure. Would like to hear.
Thanks for the interview! I'm watching from Russia, despite the fact that our government is slowing down TH-cam.
Hi from Russia too😊
I hope for peace and I root for you all to find it. I know we are in a complicated world. I'm glad we all get to come together through great minds/conversations
@@Scarhandz thank you
get a vpn!
@@dubcotics who said we don't, if we didn't we would be watching it now
L-logic
Dear Michael Shermer, I watch most of your interviews, they are very interesting.
I have a request. Richard Dawkins is a hero of mine and I notice his new book prominently displayed behind him. My curiosity is with the other books on the shelves behind him.
What are the titles? I would be interested to read the books that Dawkins has found worthy of keeping on his bookshelves.
Try the ascent of man by Jacob Bronowski and try youtube if you are not familiar with him
1:14:20 "We have no right to expect, necessarily, that our brains are equipped to understand everything." Gleaming through the thick erudition, this is the humility that all scholars should remember to cultivate, and it's a call to embrace patience and compassion in dealing with others who think differently. Thanks for sharing the discussion.
"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." Also Dawkins! Maybe he learned some humility from religion?
Richard Dawkins keeps working. Always something new, and relevant.
fwiw, the "device" they can't name at 31min30 is the Antikythera mechanism (see some great youtube videos for more info)
The man who, more than anyone else, changed my mind and therefore my life. What a mind. What a writer. I cannot wait to read this new book. And I cannot wait to reread it-as I have done and will continue to do with all of his books. It's an honour to share this place and this moment in a vast eternity with Professor Dawkins.
47:00 - Re a person of faith discovering that the religious 'facts' they've been brought up on aren't based on reality... "What do you do then?" asks Michael on their behalf.
As (hopefully) everyone watching this video will know: what you do is you ask more questions. If you find answers to those questions, you question the answers!
Eventually, you'll uncover the truth. Maybe. You might not be around to hear it, but your great, great, great grandson may be. Or not.
Unlike religion, science rarely provides satisfyingly complete answers to order, but they're always worth waiting for.
I love you two, I was unable to work and afford an education. Thanks for all your hard work.
I’ve learned more from YT than college
Check out videos on Nietzsche for a frame on all philosophy. Won’t find that on this channel
Very refreshing. Richard is interviewed by so many idiots. Now we have two very intelligent men chatting. Could not be better. Can we have more of this.
So fine listening to you guys. Thank you. Doug
The issue I had with SJ Gould in his book Wonderful Life is that he jumped to conclusions the basis of morphologic evidence in the fossil record alone. He ignored that gobs and gobs of biological traits that contribute to the evolution of species or their extinction leave no trace in the fossil record: colour, to camouflage or stand out; chemical weapons such as deterring scents, irritants, poisons, pheromones and so on; one can go on.
Wonderful Life wasn't about speciation, or subtle differences between species, or even different traits like color which can occur within species (e.g. sexual dimorphism). Its about the monumental moment in geological time where radically different body plans--at the major scale of animal phyla--were formed. Many phyla so different they seem other-worldly, many which went extinct (with nature never making more), thereby making modern animals more similar to each other now than the radical diversity observed in the Cambrian.
Two guys that I trust, on the same conversation, nice. (ps. watch "Beyond Belief" conference recordings 2001 ish)
Exactly how I felt when I saw the thumbnail
Relaxing, entertaining and amusing.
Great show
It's nice to talk about science again instead of politics
th-cam.com/video/d4ERGgVS3fs/w-d-xo.html
He isnt a Geneticist. This is pure Philosophy+Politics.
@@Nah_Bohdi He's trained as a zoologist I believe, and his more technical books like the extended phenotype have been quite impactful on the field
Wonderful conversation, thank you.
I learned recently that there is evidence to suggest that the most recent common ancestor of the dugong and the elephant may have been aquatic, which, if true, would mean that elephants are animals whose ancestors left the water, went back, and then left again.
1:13:09- perhaps the only way we can truly understand the nature of Consciousness isn’t by searching for the right answer but by asking the right question.
As Douglas Adam’s brilliantly suggested in his “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” when searching for the meaning to Life, the Universe & Everything.
Anyone who thinks it would be a good idea to have chickens with teeth has never reached under a broody hen to collect eggs.
Biological evolution remains the best model to explain the vast amount of knowledge and information accumulated through academic research, particularly over the last two hundred years. "Creationists" and others criticize the theory of evolution, but they are incapable of proposing an alternative theory that explains the available data better or at least as good as the theory of evolution.
Dawkins said, in the blind watchmaker, that "Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose..."
I can't speak for creationists, but it may be that biology is simply what it looks like. That would solve a lot of the problems that have arisen with the theory in recent years. And creationists deserve some credit for being amongst the first to point them out.
As usual, an enlightening explanation of many aspects of reality.
Richard Dawkins' conceptual clarity, and knowledge, is just amazing.
This is the kind of conversation that makes the "dinner party question" pretty much redundant. No need to ask who you would invite to your perfect dinner party when there are exponents of the ideal guest available on demand - a mere click away - and you don't have to do any cooking!
Come together again soon please! These conversations are wonderful Absolutely 💯 from a 16 year of Catholic school kid when they taught creationism! ❤😂🎉 so wonderful to finally hear 👂 truth!
I love these two guys. Thank you both for being so awesome.
My hero on genes again! Great🎉
th-cam.com/video/d4ERGgVS3fs/w-d-xo.html
He isnt a Geneticist. This is pure Philosophy+Politics.
Great discussion.
Respected Sirs,I have read few books by Richard Dawkins including Selfish Gene,The extended phenotype,Greatest Show on Earth,The God delusion and convinced about the gene’s eye view of evolution.Ever since I am a lot happier person to learn the greatest TRUTH ,EVOLUTION.Currently I am reading The genetic book of the dead.I am enjoying the video a lot giving more clarity.I request you to keep each video confined to the subject.Any reference in between about creationist etc.destroys the joy of listening the video on the main subject.Thank you very much.
I really enjoyed the story about the evolution of the keyboard layout. Qwerty is a fixed function that is difficult to change now!
Some people know everything and understand nothing.
The Irish elk issue, the result of female selection for bigger, "sexier" antlers, the males were just, in effect, stuck with them.
At 9:10 Michael S. should have said: 'I couldn't have said it better myself'. LOL. Thanks so much for my continuing education fellows.
wonderful, but, even a human designer of a new something does not, actually, start from scratch, but starts from where his/her history based culture has taught her/him.
Could anyone send a link for me to learn more about the whale/dolphin journey from sea to land and back again? I can try google scholar but I know it’s limited.
Antikythera mechanism? (Reverse engineering, c. 30 mins)
Around 55:52 Richard said something that makes me wonder: must there have been a creature that had two offspring, one of which had descendents that were Chimpanzees and one that had descendents that were humans?
He did say that but he's not quite correct. If you are looking at a single nucleotide (SNP) in the DNA you could "point" to a single common ancestor for two descendant species, say chimp and human, but another SNP in the DNA would have a different common ancestor, probably of the same population. What he said was a slight simplification. He should have said small breeding population rather than single individual as being the common ancestors to both descendant species.
Maybe like a watercourse which took two routes after an obstruction...
@@hankdewit7548 thank you
"two offspring, one of which had descendents that were Chimpanzees and one that had descendents that were humans" That is what I am using to explain evolution to creationists
Great discussion!
Big fan❤
You should invite Denis Noble for a talk
Considering he was quite ill a couple of years ago, RD's looking very fit and healthy
1:12:45 - imagine being cryogenically frozen so you could do that ? Whether our species, (or any other), would still be around in 500 years is another matter.
I think here is an ever more impressive example than the turtle: the Siberian Chosenia willow (Salix arbutifolia), which has made a journey from wind pollination to insect pollination to wind pollination to insect pollination to wind pollination.
Michael always does his his homework
Another Dawkins classic.
Utmost respect!
I am still working on theses questions given the Stephen Meyer book ( Return of the God hypothesis).The irreducible complexity question ?
You mean.... pseudoscience propaganda book.
Self-consciousness, like a mirror, is the recognition of ourselves, by the reflection, from the mind in our brain's other hemisphere.
About that nerves, I think engineers call it cable management. Just check any gaming PC, they do it.
Two highly intelligent men, linguistically jumping through hoops to pat each other on the back with articulating the no more than rules of what might have happened or what could have happened. All the while forgetting that some of the newest science is showing that ToE is all but over with.
Was always thinking, if you allign your legs and feet so they fill out all “empty spaces” side by side, you get a kind of fish looking one limb. But maybe Im overthinking 😅
I differ about Epigenesis. That is where grouping genetics work. Emergence is by its nature unpredictable. IMO
I highly recommend you look at the available research papers that clearly indicate that epigenetics hasn't much material testable verifiable material evidence. As a evolutionary mechanism....weak in its effects and short lived in any population.
@@Raydensheraj "Hasn't much evidence" > "weak in its effects". I see. I interpret . . . but I'm an old man with many passing interests. You're correct, I'm sure. I _should_ look.
31:24 The antikythera device is what they're talking about.
It is always a great enjoyment listening to Dawkins or reading his books.We have come so far in doing impossible surgeries and engineering building airplanes and rockets,the credit goes to cultural evolution.Human brains are unique that they are prone to be receptive to memes and allowing them to inhabit our brains.Memes are the thinking tools that enhance the powers of our brains exponentially.Without memes human brains or consciousness could not achieve what humans have achieved by cultural evolution.Virender Bhalla
Obviously intelligence evolved to create ours, so if you don't believe in strong emergence you must be live intelligence evolves as well
It's funny how even the language that Dawson uses to try to argue against design is itself full of the pretension.
He explains evolution as a force with intentions and economics, rather than the random genetic mutations that it is imagined as.
Our language is imperfect. It's easy to fall back into old habits and get a bit sloppy with our language.
@spaceghost8995 our language provides ample vocabulary to express things accurately. There is no excuse for a scientist to use poetry when simple words are just as easy to voice....unless the excuse is a symptom of underlying beliefs.
@@DejanOfRadic Relax .
@@spaceghost8995 you're right....only experts can talk about stuff
Scientism is utterly insufficient to satisfactorily explain the mysteries of the universe. The explanatory potential of science has been vastly overexaggerated in recent decades. There's good reason to be skeptical about the overconfidence emanating from the so-called New Atheism movement, including the fact that people like Dawkins rely on metaphysical, empirically unverifiable assumptions to even engage in science in the first place.
1;03;54
Bats aren't blind
He corrected himself later and said "nearly blind."
36:25 let that be a lesson to the females, I think you mean. They're the ones doing the choosing. They're the ones providing the selection pressure. The males are just trying out different things...
Strangely, Dawkins' comment that rocks can't possibly be conscious, helped me to understand Hoffman's _Inter-relating Conscious Agents_ hypothesis a little better. If consciousness is the substrate of the universe, everything that manifests out of the substrate must be conscious. We don't need to specify the quality or nature of any of all such consciousnesses in comparison to human experience of consciousness.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
13:10 soidel
What would the intellectual class do if the palemcest also gave evidence to possible future developments.obviously outside future environmental influences would determine outcomes
Maybe there are dolphins asking themselves what is it like to be a human.
Fascinating stuff. I'm not sure I quite understood what he was saying about group selection, though - surely the group puts selective pressure on individuals to conform? (e.g. if a mutation causes an individual sardine to start acting differently to the shoal, it will get separated and eaten)
My cat understands what I am saying he is very clever
7:30
Thomas Aquinas separated the two into rational thought and divine thought .
Yes, one makes logical sense the other doesn't but don't think about it too much.
Really great videos! That's a pity not many views and likes. Unfortunately, ppl these days ar3more into some dumb things
It's reverse stealing or copying 😂
Richard Dawkins - Natural Selection’s finest !
I dont see why there cannot be intelligent design and using evolution as an upgrading system.
So the intelligent designer loves spontaneous natural abortions and miscarriages caused by a way too narrowly designed birthcanal?
Crohn's disease? Parasitic wasps laying their eggs alien style into their victims? Klinefelter's syndrome? Cancer in small children suffering?
Evolution and the reality of outrageously un-intelligent design completely refutates intelligent design..
But what would be the point of that?
That's ridiculous. Who designed your designer then? You cannot get around that problem. Asserting it was always there is just special pleading.
when this fellow dies, there's going to be such an enormous feast at all places of worship 🎉🥳!!
just kidding. Huge fan :)
Wrong way round. The past reveals the functional history of genes.
It is all in the genes; no consciousness; no mind; no intellect; just biology. This may be true of RD but he shouldn’t extrapolate to be true, or to apply, to anyone else.
_"It's very clear that we are now in the _*_END OF TIMES_*_ "_ Sumerian cuneiform etching found on a clay tablet, radio-carbon dated to circa 3,500 years ago . . . - j q t -
Human races are ring species according to Dawkins theory
a guide to leaving the cave...
🧬
👉🫘🌱
Richard Dawkins?.... Gross.
😅😅😮😢🎉😂❤❤❤
Sometimes I wonder if Dawkins is really serious about everything he says.
You don't have to be a creationist to call yourself a Christian.
Sure but if you don't believe in the bible then IDK why you would be a Christian.
I'd rather believe ANYTHING other than virgin births thank you
Shermer is such a dishonest shill
it’s shocking to me that he still doesn’t understand what multilevel selection in. group selection and gene selection are not mutually exclusive. his views are extremely dated and i don’t recommend anybody learn about genes or evolution from him.
Have you ever seen other evolutionists take this objection from him?
@@new_criticiser you will not really find a practicing evolutionary scientist (whether they’re a biologist or anthropologist) take dawkins’s view in full. his best work was the extended phenotype, which is very similar to the ideas of george c williams and is essentially a description/interpretation of population genetics.
he’s a great writer and popularizer, and his ideas were initially very influential, but a lot has changed. what a multilevel selectionist would say today is you can have gene selection and group selection. the former is stronger but the latter occurs when inter-group competition places stronger selective pressure on genes that influence cooperative action. cooperative groups outcompete selfish groups.
a lot of the talk about the relationship of genes to phenotype has changed as well. the frustrating fact about dawkins is he has not changed his thinking since the 1970s despite massive changes to our understanding.
th-cam.com/video/d4ERGgVS3fs/w-d-xo.html
He isnt a Geneticist. This is pure Philosophy+Politics.
@@Nah_Bohdi agree. he was purely a conceptual thinker. the selfish gene caught on because it fit the desired ideological commitments of (capitalist) society.
1- Many people were buried alive, and they wake up. Still happens to our day.
2- Richard is more religious in his belief than any religious person on earth.
3- I'm not so sure that in 500 years, people living than would appreciate you Richard coming back.
4- Pythagoras theorem is only true in an imaginary Euclidean geometry (not true in the real curved geometry we live in).
1- No: Modern medicine and procedures make such scenarios exceedingly rare.
2- No: Richard's intellectual rigor and religious belief operate on different premises.
3- No: Speculating about future reactions lacks grounding in historical trends.
4- No: Pythagoras' theorem is valid within Euclidean geometry, even if not universal.
@@UncleBuZ It is impressing that you can count to four.
@@gk-qf9hv Counting to four, such a monumental achievement. If you’re impressed by the basics, it might be worth expanding your horizons beyond the rudimentary. Intellectual engagement and thoughtful discourse could offer you a more profound sense of amazement.
@@gk-qf9hv Oh, btw. The adjective "impressive" is needed instead of the present participle "impressing."
he is so dense
In the XII century significant events take place, as described in the Gospels: the coming of Jesus Christ, his life and crucifixion, although the existing text of the Gospels was edited and most likely dates to the XIV-XV cc. In the mid XII century, in the year 1152, Jesus Christ is born. In secular Byzantine history he is known as Emperor Andronicus and St. Andrew the Apostle the First-Called in Russian history he was portrayed as the Great Prince Andrey Bogolyubsky. To be more specific, Andrey Bogolyubsky is a chronicler counterpart of Andronicus-Christ during his stay in Vladimir-Suzdal Rus’ of the XII century, where he spent most of his life. In fact, the Star of Bethlehem blazed in the middle of the XII century. This gives us an absolute astronomical dating of Christ’s Life. [ЦРС], ch.1. ‘Star of Bethlehem’ - is an explosion of a supernova, which at present is incorrectly dated to the middle of the XI century. The present-day Crab Nebula in the Taurus Constellation is the remnant of this explosion.
Enigmatic timber scarcity in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages as first recognized by dender-pioneer Ernest Hollstein (1918-1988) "No sites exist anywhere with uninterrupted timber specimen from about 1000 CE backwards to Imperial Antiquity(1st-3rd c.). which is why the dendro-chronologies for Ancient Rome and, thereby the entire first millennium are in disarray. Since the very existence of the chronology periods without wood samples was never doubted by the researchers, nobody started to question our textbook chronology. Instead, out of stratigraphic context, scholars searched for wood samples in wells or moors to fill the irritating gaps. In addition, identical reign sequences were used twice in a row to gamer more years. Therefor, "all dendrochronological datings done on West Roman time wood is wrong by some unknown number of years"(") th-cam.com/video/c876lPZ-UZU/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=PlanetAmnesia
The gospels are written anonymously. Nothing in the bible is fact. It’s just a book of stories.
That's nice 😂
The bible is still man made immoral nonsense though 😂😂
Spare me the bullshit. And worse than annoying me by wasting my time, your creative retelling of history might mislead the less perceptive , and those who cannot analyse critically and so you start another line of non factual history.
Most other people strive to find the truth while you strive to obfuscate and confuse. Congratulations on using the gift of your brain to reduce the welfare of humanity. There is an adjective that describes your type which I cannot use on TH-cam
That’s a lot of words to say you don’t understand science.
@@markusbaker1161 I don't think you can blame the gospels for this particular delusional rant.
Too bad he isnt a Geneticist, but is a Philosopher.
No that's true!
But that doesn't change the fact of evolution.
if u r too stupid to know Dawkins background then...Aquaman help u
@@jameswright...
Too bad youre not an Evolutionary Biologist, but a Pontificator.
@@Nah_Bohdi
No I'm not an evolutionary biologist but unlike you I understand it.
I am a historian and archaeologist of 25 years plus working out of a natural history museum though my fellow ape.
And only you are pontificating!
Standard religious fool pushing their own inadequacies back on others.
@@Nah_Bohdi
🤣 I'm what now 🤣
That's a fancy word 🤣
Maybe you should look it up and then read your op and last post again 🤣🤣
No I'm not an evolutionary biologist but I am a historian and archaeologist of 25 years plus working out of a natural history museum my fellow ape 🤣🤣🤣
thanks!